论文部分内容阅读
[目的]比较乌拉地尔与尼卡地平治疗老年高血压急症的临床效果及安全性.[方法]选择2015年1月至2016年10本院收治的60例老年高血压急症患者为研究对象,按照随机分组原则将其分为乌拉地尔组和尼卡地平组,每组各30例.乌拉地尔组静脉注射12.5 mg,再予以50~200 μg/min乌拉地尔持续静滴;尼卡地平组给予静脉注射尼卡地平1 mg后,再予以10~40 μg/min持续静滴.结合患者血压变化情况适当优化、调整药物剂量,观察两组患者用药前后心率(HR)、血压变化情况及不良反应.[结果]乌拉地尔组总有效率为90.00%(27/30),尼卡地平组总有效率为93.33%(28/30),两组总有效率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组患者治疗10 min、20 min、30 min、60 min、120 min时SBP均显著低于治疗前,两组患者治疗60 min、120 min时DBP、HR均显著低于治疗前,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05);乌拉地尔组治疗10 min、20 min、30 min、60 min、120 min时HR显著低于尼卡地平组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).两组患者在治疗期间均出现不同程度的口干、面红、便秘等不良反应,乌拉地尔组不良反应发生率6.7%(2/30)显著低于尼卡地平组的20.0%(6/30),组间差异具统计学差异(χ2=18.063,P0.05).10 min,20 min,30 min,60 min and 120 min SBP of two groups of patients were significantly lower than those before treatment;60 min,120 min DBP and HR of two groups were significantly lower than that before treatment,the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05);The HR of urapidil group was significantly lower than that of nicardipine group at 10 min,20 min,30 min,60 min and 120 min,with statistical difference (P<0.05).Two groups of patients had different degrees of adverse reactions such as dry mouth,constipation,flushing during treatment,occurrence of adverse reaction rate of 6.7% (2/30) of the urapidil group was significantly lower than that of the nicardipine group (6/30 20%),with statistically significant differences between the groups (χ2=18.063,P<0.05).[Conclusion]Urapidil or nicardipine is effective in the treatment of elderly hypertensive emergencies,but the incidence of adverse events of urapidil is lower,and it has better drug safety.